Association between physical activity and quality of life among Western Australian breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that physical activity (PA) may be beneficial to quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. Few studies however, have focused on the time period soon after the completion of adjuvant therapy or examined exercise issues separately for rural/urban or healthy weight/obese breast cancer survivors. Our study addressed these issues. Breast cancer survivors (N = 558) from the Western Australia Cancer Registry completed a survey that included the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) scale. Results showed that only 31% of breast cancer survivors were meeting the recommended PA guidelines post-treatment. Analysis of variance revealed that survivors meeting these guidelines reported higher scores on the FACT-B (mean difference 8.6; 95% CI = 5.0-12.1; p<0.001), the FACT-General (mean difference 6.3; 95% CI = 3.5-9.0; p<0.001), the trial outcome index (TOI; p<0.001), and several of the FACT-B subscales. Furthermore, healthy weight participants also reported higher scores than obese participants on the FACT-B (p = 0.058) and the breast cancer subscale (p = 0.033). There were no differences based on geographic location. We conclude that physically active and healthy weight breast cancer survivors report better QoL than their inactive and obese counterparts soon after completing adjuvant therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".